The Official Transit Thread

[Buggernut]

Pretty much.

Much like the so called toll to Grant McConachie (laugh) or a toll on the Aurthur Laing (last resort) there are things that can be done to improve traffic before something that drastic happens. The north runway is just over a decade old, I don't think runways are at capacity quite yet.

Huh? What does that have to do with air traffic, and whether or not another runway needs to be built?

If people have a flight to catch, they will go there, bridge toll or not.

[ronthecivil]

Huh? What does that have to do with air traffic, and whether or not another runway needs to be built?

If people have a flight to catch, they will go there, bridge toll or not.

I was just saying that there are ways of dealing with traffic (whether it be air or land) that don't involve tolls or building more runways. That is all.

[Captain Bob]

A few things I've heard of, that should be 95% accurate:

1) the Canada Line will begin service on Monday, August 17th

2) there will be no feeder bus lines to the Canada Line until September....the change in the region's bus routes won't occur until school starts (the 98 B-Line and commuter buses on Granville will remain until September). InTransitBC only decided on the August 17th opening date this past week, certainly not giving Translink enough time to prepare.

3) there are fears there may not be enough buses to transport people around during the Olympics. There was talk of borrowing buses from Seattle. However there was a problem as to who would drive them. Seattle suggested their drivers, but the union here said no way!

This wouldn't be a problem if the Skytrain actually went down Granville, but now commuters have to take a bus from Cambie over.

[inane]

The preferred option for a fourth runway in 20-30 years is to fill in the ocean.

This is a horrible idea. We've already paved over a significant portion of the Pacific flyway, a major stop for migrating birds from Alaska to South America. A runway into the ocean? Horrible idea.

[ronthecivil]

This wouldn't be a problem if the Skytrain actually went down Granville, but now commuters have to take a bus from Cambie over.

Sure, but the people going to from Cambie no longer will have to take a connecting bus, and given the number of facilities there, I would say that number is probably more. Also you can just transfer at Marine station to the ten (or is it 17 the number change screws me up, the ten should go to UBC but it don't) to access Marpole and the like.

[ronthecivil]

This is a horrible idea. We've already paved over a significant portion of the Pacific flyway, a major stop for migrating birds from Alaska to South America. A runway into the ocean? Horrible idea.

What needs to be built is a large tidal island far enough out into the tidal flats that planes are high enough they don't get in the way of birds for them to use as a stop over. You know, some sort of mini sea island recreated outside of the flightpath?

[Captain Bob]

What needs to be built is a large tidal island far enough out into the tidal flats that planes are high enough they don't get in the way of birds for them to use as a stop over. You know, some sort of mini sea island recreated outside of the flightpath?

You mean for the birds?

Good luck teaching them to use the new area.

[inane]

What needs to be built is a large tidal island far enough out into the tidal flats that planes are high enough they don't get in the way of birds for them to use as a stop over. You know, some sort of mini sea island recreated outside of the flightpath?

haha yes good luck trying to get the public to support spending the kind of money that would cost on birds.

Also, they've been flying up and down this coast for thousands of years, we need to start respecting that kind of thing instead of just paving it over or moving it.

It's like at my work, the developer proposes some horrible crap subdivision, and part of their application is to relocate a stream. They promise to plants lots of plants and trees and whatever. But the fact that you're moving a stream, a stream that naturally developed there and artificially changing it...well, guess what happens 9 times out of 10.

[Captain Bob]

haha yes good luck trying to get the public to support spending the kind of money that would cost on birds.

Also, they've been flying up and down this coast for thousands of years, we need to start respecting that kind of thing instead of just paving it over or moving it.

It's like at my work, the developer proposes some horrible crap subdivision, and part of their application is to relocate a stream. They promise to plants lots of plants and trees and whatever. But the fact that you're moving a stream, a stream that naturally developed there and artificially changing it...well, guess what happens 9 times out of 10.

[inane]

+1

[ronthecivil]

haha yes good luck trying to get the public to support spending the kind of money that would cost on birds.

Also, they've been flying up and down this coast for thousands of years, we need to start respecting that kind of thing instead of just paving it over or moving it.

It's like at my work, the developer proposes some horrible crap subdivision, and part of their application is to relocate a stream. They promise to plants lots of plants and trees and whatever. But the fact that you're moving a stream, a stream that naturally developed there and artificially changing it...well, guess what happens 9 times out of 10.

Well, to get to lager first, they will eventually figure it out as it developes into a nice tidal flat that has food.

And this is a proposal I have to compensate for the existing airport, not any future runway plans, which would have a snowballs chance in hell of getting enviromental approval, even if you did bridge the lot of it.

As for the stream, if anything I would be a riparian area nazi and say work around it. A smart developer could work them into the plans to make some very nice walks throughout the community. In fact, say in the city of Vancouver, if there was a large scale redevelopement like the crazy ideas I talk about, part of the deal would be to re open culverted in creeks to make the same thing in the city of Vancouver. The city actualy has plans already in place to do that with Still Creek, and a series of developements moving upstream to get it going.

Now, your developer would be right to say that the fish would eventually come back, probably in a decade. But that's a decade of no fish!

Edited July 22, 2009 by ronthecivil

[ronthecivil]

Looking at it closer, you could go on the north arm jetty as an access and put in large rip rap, and then just fill in the middle to a happy tidal elevation (there is lots of fill coming out right now, and more to come) and then plant it up and what not to make it nice. The costs would actually be reasonable since you would be able to get much of the fill for free and I don't see why the public wouldn't like the idea of building a bird santuary, specially one with a nice walk along the river to get to.

[BuckyHermit]

I really doubt you can do anything with the north arm jetties, because it's a designated regional park. Like hell the Metro Vancouver board is going to let you kill a regional park just to expand the airport.

[Common sense]

I really doubt you can do anything with the north arm jetties, because it's a designated regional park. Like hell the Metro Vancouver board is going to let you kill a regional park just to expand the airport.

then I say we pave over Burkeville.

[Captain Bob]

then I say we pave over Burkeville.

To do what with?

Winnipeg has mosquitos that are bigger than Burkeville. There's really not much you can do with it.

[ronthecivil]

then I say we pave over Burkeville.

That was a pretty stupid place to build a town.

[Captain Bob]

That was a pretty stupid place to build a town.

Not really.

It was residence for pilots during the war. Most airforce bases across the country have little communities like that attached.

[inane]

That was a pretty stupid place to build a town.

It made perfect sense back in the day when yvr employees needed a place to live and the airport was still relatively small.

You know what's a stupid place to build a town? Richmond. Contrary to the LRSP, they've developed and densified the whole area--one significant shaker and they sink.

Money talks! Logic walks.

Edited July 22, 2009 by inane

[ahzdeen]

It made perfect sense back in the day when yvr employees needed a place to live and the airport was still relatively small.

You know what's a stupid place to build a town? Richmond. Contrary to the LRSP, they've developed and densified the whole area--one significant shaker and they sink.

Money talks! Logic walks.

That's what happens when a Feng sui guy takes a look at a map and says, this place would have awesome feng sui! Pearl in a dragon's mouth my donkey.

[ronthecivil]

It made perfect sense back in the day when yvr employees needed a place to live and the airport was still relatively small.

You know what's a stupid place to build a town? Richmond. Contrary to the LRSP, they've developed and densified the whole area--one significant shaker and they sink.

Money talks! Logic walks.

Yessir, my joke livable regional plan would be to put a cordon around Steveston, demolish the rest of Richmond, turn it back to framland, and use the rubble to build an highway to the airport.

I guess they must have done most of the suburbs before the ALR got in place.

Delta on the other hand has some small service communities that farmers need but is still almost entirely rural. That's how I wish Richmond (or for that matter Surrey and Langly) looked.